Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Ask the Tropers is for:
- General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
- Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
- Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.
Ask the Tropers is not for:
- Help identifying a trope. See TropeFinder.
- Help identifying a work. See MediaFinder.
- Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
- Proposing new tropes. See TropeLaunchPad.
- Making bug reports. See QueryBugs.
- Asking for new wiki features. See QueryWishlist.
- Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
- Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
- Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.
Ask the Tropers:
openRepeated Issues and Move?
Trivia.The Conversion Bureau The Chatoverse:
General Trivia
- Contrary to what "New Universe Three: The Friendship Virus" claims, men are not responsible for 98% of all violence and rape. This is a common misconception and an example of Common Knowledge.
- Also, the increase of oxytocin would increase nurturing... in anyone within your "group" according to nationalism. Enough of it increasing worldwide would cause such an up-spike in tribalism that about five wars would break out at once.
This was under Critical Research Failure until it was made a Disambiguation which was told to be cut as opposed to moved as too inflammatory
, Abbywabby moved it to Artistic License, which was cut
as AL is not supposed to be taken as real life fact which this story does, now Abbywabby moved it here citing "Since there is no consensus on which items exactly are appropriate, they should be listed here until a consensus on where else, if anywhere, is best. If it is agreed they do not fit anything in particular, they should probably be deleted or left here for lack of a better place."
I don't disagree that it should be mentioned if something it fits is found, but this seems inappropriate adding something that was twice deemed too contentious to keep and shoehorn if not outright inappropriate use of "General Trivia" (it make me question if it's worth having "General Trivia" if it's used to shoehorn in stuff that's not proper Tropes or Trivia entries). Thoughts?
Also from the page:
- Undermined By Reality: Chatoyance openly states that her version of Equestria, the Princesses, and the ponies is "more in line with Lauren Faust's original vision" than that of the show. However:
- This version of Celestia is basically the omnipotent god empress of Equestria despite Faust herself directly stating that Celestia is not actually a goddess.
- The show's pilot, written by Faust to set up their vision for the series, had Princess Luna become Nightmare Moon and bring about The Night That Never Ends, which Faust stated would have ultimately killed all life on the planet, out of jealousy. While Chatoyance handwaves other antagonistic ponies as descended from a ponified human, they portray Luna as an infallible Big Good without any acknowledgment of Nightmare Moon which would invalidate the point of their work to portray ponies as morally superior if one as great as Luna could fall and commit such evildoing.
Undermined By Reality was cut as now a disambiguation
. Would Informed Attribute (saying their work is in line with X but unsupported/contradicted in the actual work) be a valid replacement in this case?
openQuestionable entries to NotWorthKilling .
Thought I would bring this here instead of just going in and deleting examples. Want to make sure I'm not barking up the wrong tree. The Not Worth Killing page has many entries that are questionable at best, and others that seem to be roughly shoehorned in to make them fit.
Some examples: Under the Real Life section, this is given as the reason Ali signaled the ref to end his fight against Jerry Quarry. Anyone who has seen or knows about the fight knows that is not the case. Quarry put up a valiant effort but by the seventh round was completely out of gas and could barely defend himself. Ali was deriving no satisfaction whatsoever out of pummeling him, because Everyone Has Standards, and even the commentators were openly wondering why the ref hadn't stopped the fight. After the fight Ali personally went to Quarry's corner to make certain he was okay and speak kind words of encouragement to him. Not Worth Killing simply doesn't apply.
Also under Real Life, the BBFC returning the film New York Ripper to Italy has nothing to do with killing anyone (it's a film, not a person). Again, you could probably say the BBFC was just displaying Everyone Has Standards.
Under the Live-Action TV section, take the Daredevil example of Fisk telling Wesley not to kill Karen. It isn't that Fisk thinks she's not worth killing, it's just that everything she knows is already in the papers so done is done, and Fisk does show her respect. If killing her would have kept it out of the papers, she'd be dead because she would have been worth killing.
Under Film - Live Action, the Breaking Dawn example feels incredibly shoehorned in, Cruel Mercy is what really applies.
The Predator example is another. It's not that Dutch thinks the Predator is not worth killing, far from it. He can already see it's mortally wounded, so he drops the rock and asks it a question ("what the hell are you?"). Big mistake on his part, because it gives the predator the opportunity to activate the self-destruct feature in his armor.
Okay, that's all. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
Edited by Traveler123open"They Changed It, Now It Sucks!" misuse?
- They Changed It, Now It Sucks!: The manner used to bring John to his Silent Protagonist self from the games ( which amounts to him undergoing Death of Personality so that Cortana can drive his body) has been absolutely eviscerated by fans. Part of this is due to the fact that many had no problems with John having a personality on the first place, instead disliking the Adaptational Personality Change he went in the series. Many also viewed it as a tone-deaf insult toward fans.
I question if this is an example as it's not the change from the original that this states it disliked, but changing/undoing his Adaptational Personality Change which was already disliked. So dislike for the means of bringing him more in line with the original, that sounds like something else. Maybe Fan-Disliked Explanation? Anything else a better fit?
openWhat is this?
Peacefulpie is a new troper, and their edits are kind of odd.
- Here
, they switched 'Tolstoy" to 'Toystory'.
- Here
, they switched 'Pushkin' to 'Pushykins'.
- Here
, they switched 'Gogol' to 'Googly eyes".
- Here
, they seem to make a toilet joke in an image caption. It looks like they also removed the image itself (and added
a commented-out note with 5 misprints) but that's been fixed by now.
- They expanded
an image caption, then deleted
their addition saying "vandalism" in the edit reason.
openEdit War over misuse
So on little while back troper, fugamalefica, made a page for Characters.Harry Potter Bellatrix Lestrange that was merged with a new page Characters.Harry Potter Death Eaters Inner Circle. They also added
a entry before it was merged:
- One True Love: Despite being married to Rodolphus Lestrange, Voldemort is the love of her life and the father of her child.
This entry was merged into the Inner Circle page. However, Ti M Ber 1566 removed it
with the edit reason There is no genuine love between Voldemort and Bellatrix at all. Bellatrix only "loves" Voldemort because he embodies her racist views, not for Voldemort himself." fugamalefica then re-added
it saying "Rowling herself called Voldemort the love Bellatrix's life. She is mentioned in the books to speak to him as if to a lover. To say otherwise is merely a matter of opinion." Now I know that this troper has already been suspended
for edit Warring concerning Voldemort and Bellatrix's "love". So what should be done here. I feel like the work doesn't really portray it as One True Love and given that it is a result of edit war and a tropers shipping bias. Am I good to remove?
openContested Sequels for The Legend of Zelda? Videogame
The YMMV page for The Legend of Zelda has Contested Sequel with the following argument.
"Between the near-universally agreed-upon golden age of A Link to the Past to Majora's Masknote Excluding the hiatus after Link's Awakening that brought the CD-i games and the renaissance in the eyes of previously disgruntled fans with A Link Between Worlds and Breath of the Wild, many of the games released in the time between those periods became this (at least in the eyes of fans; critics largely consider the series consistently good). By far the most divisive period among fans is the DS/Wii era (Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, Skyward Sword), which has many fans decrying it as the low point of the series due to issues such as increased linearity, overly long intro sections and pre-dungeon quests that drag down the pacing, and decreased difficulty; however, just as many fans find the DS/Wii era on par with the rest of the series, if not the high point, thanks to their more focused gameplay, more substantial main quests, more accessible difficulty with potential for Self-Imposed Challenge. This era's greater focus on storytelling is also divisive, with many fans debating on whether the games' stories work with or make up for the increased linearity or were the cause of its problems with handholding and pacing and/or weren't good enough to make up for the linearity."
Is this entry even valid? Most of the games described in the entry were commercial and critical successes back when they were first released and even when people find flaws in those games in hindsight, they otherwise have positive opinions about this game. I already posted this question in the discussion page
and Is this an example
, just in case.
So, what do you say?
Edited by MasterHeroopenTaylor Swift's WMG page & speculations about personal life
I recently ran across Taylor Swift and I think the page needs a cleanup. While there are some valid theories and musings about the fictional characters Swift portrays in her songs, some of them get uncomfortably gossipy and speculative about her private life and orientation. I can clean it up myself, but do I need to take it to a thread somewhere? Cheers!
Edited by annieholmesopenFanservice Tropes/Halo (2022) Live Action TV
I'm sorry if this should maybe go in another place, but I wasn't sure so I figured I'd start here. I've bene going over the Series / Halo 2022 character pages (which are a bit of a mess, but I'm trying to focus on one issue), and I figured I'd start with something small that's been bugging me.
Namely, the Mr/Ms. Fanservice tropes are used no less than 4 times on the character page, with what I would call very thin justification.
First, there's John the Master Chief
- Mr. Fanservice: Scarring aside, Chief is a very ripped man underneath all that armor. The third episode has him buck naked, with several full views of his rear, in the SPARTAN barracks, even if the scene in question has him taking a suppression implant out of his back using a knife.
As pointed out, the scene where John is nude is so he can perform surgery on himself, it's not scored or lit or shot in "look at how sexy John is" sort of way. He is muscular, but then so are plenty of the characters on the show.
Next, Kai another SPARTAN
- Ms. Fanservice: Like with her CO, Kai is shown naked in the SPARTAN barracks for a brief moment to show off her well-toned physique—and that she took out her hormonal pellet.
Same thing, the purpose of the nudity is not to titillate, arouse, or otherwise turn on the audience.
Third, there's Vinsher Grath, played by Burn Gorman
- Mr. Fanservice: He gets a scene in a bathhouse in Episode 4 showcasing his toned physique.
This is another one that I don't think qualifies, because as the scene did actually seem to be using the nudity for a purpose, but not fanservice. It was more so A: Vinsher could give secret orders to an assassin and B: to show how decadent he is now that he rules the planet-he's smoking a cigar in the bath as well, to showcase that he's living the high life.
Last but not least
- Ms. Fanservice: Makee gets to undress in the second episode, showing off her very attractive figure in the process (aside from some scarring).
There is, to be fair about a two-second shot of Makee's backside from a wide angle, but once again the nudity is being used to tell a story-namely, Makee is changing out of the clothes she wears when working for the Covenant (which she has presumably worn for decades) and into more human clothes. The scene also cuts to John explaining how he felt emotions for the first time in basically forever, to highlight that John and Makee are similar (both are becoming more human, so to speak, which gets brought up in later episodes), and in this case Makee spends a lot of time staring at her body, as if re-examining her limbs to understand that she is a human (as someone basically raised by aliens, she doesn't think of herself much as a human), so the nudity is, again, being used to tell a story.
So, I think the problem I have is these examples are operating under the idea that "nudity, for any reason at all=fanservice". Am I making too much of this, or should these examples maybe be removed? Obviously, anybody can be turned on by anything, and all of these characters are played by actors who are conventionally attractive, but given how attractive everybody is in tv/film, I figured there were some thresholds for Mr./Ms. Fanservice to avoid overuse and gushing.
For what it's worth, every single example was added by one troper, chris4449.
Edited by ArthurEldopenTropes involving a group of characters Western Animation
Encanto is a large cast movie, with 13 named members of Madrigal family itself plus a large handful of named villagers. One thing I've noticed in participating in the editing surrounding Encanto trope pages is the desire to take various 3, 4, or 5 person tropes and start filling out the ranks of those tropes with the members of the large cast.
What this seems to be doing is finding characters in the cast whose personality traits match up with the requirements of the trope even though the 3, 4, or 5 characters don't actually have any scenes where they function as a group, or team or ensemble.
For example, on the character page, Julieta and her 3 daughters (Luisa, Isabela and Mirabel) are listed as a Four-Girl Ensemble. It's a case where they are all members of the same family and each character does fulfill the basic personality requirements of the trope.
However, in terms of the story being told, they are never actually shown interacting as an ensemble. Mirabel has individual scenes with the other female members of her family but, aside from breakfast/dinner scenes, the four are never shown together "just hanging".
So my question is whether this trope is truly in play in this story?
Even the Four-Girl Ensemble example acknowledges that while they fit the personality types, they don't actually function as an ensemble in the story.
There are other tropes listed on the Encanto pages with a similar weakness. Matching personality traits? Yes. But, actually being a group, team, band or ensemble? Not so much.
To me it seems that both halves of the equation need to be "Yes" for the trope to be in play but I'd like some feedback on this.
openNon-YMMV trope on YMMV page
On the YMMV page for Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, lorgskyegon added this:
- Mistaken for Racist: It wasn't until ten episodes into the series that anyone from the cast or crew realized the implications of casting a black man as the Black Ranger and an Asian woman as the Yellow Ranger, but that was never the intention. Thuy Trang was actually a last-minute casting to replace the original Hispanic actress who quit holding out for a larger paycheck. Walter Jones was originally cast as the Blue Ranger. The producers wanted him to switch because the Black and Red Rangers were best friends in the Japanese footage and Jason and Zack were portrayed as such in the American footage. Jones agreed because he liked the Black Ranger costume better.
The problem is that the trope is not a YMMV trope or an Audience Reaction and the example is referring to something involving the production of the show rather than the show itself. What should be done about it? Should it be moved to something like Mis-blamed, moved to a different page, or just deleted outright?
openRemoval with hostile edit reason
On YMMV.Battlefield 1, Mr Combine removed
an instance of Franchise Original Sin with an edit reason calling it a "racist anf [sic] sexist dogwhistle". In fairness, I think the entry could have used some more explanation (since as written, it could easily be taken to imply that female and POC representation was an issue in itself), but I think their edit reason was a bit too hostile.
openSomeone's edit warring with themself on Our Kelpies Are Different
Over the past few months, Cooking Cat has been making edits to the last paragraph of Our Kelpies Are Different's description, which consist of flopping back and forth between "northern" and "northwestern". I feel like this is breaking some rule.
Edited by NitroIndigoopenIs it appropriate to have Will Smith slap Chris Rock as a profile?
The title is self-explanatory. The reason I ask because I was thinking which picture will be my new profile so I pick the slap incident because it's a meme. And I don't know if the Will Smith slap incident is appropriate enough. What you guys think?
Edited by BubblepigopenIs Gundam IBO too dark and gritty? Anime
Ok, I gotta ask: does Mobile Suit Gundam: Iron-Blooded Orphans truly qualify for Too Bleak, Stopped Caring? TBSC is normally defined as either "both sides are either equally unlikeable (pedophiliac serial killer vs genocidal slave trader" or "the heroes' efforts ultimately amount to nothing and the universe still sucks." A story only averts the trope when it features clearly defined heroes and villains and the ending delivers a positive outcome.
TBSC was orignally listed
in the show's YMMV page by its original name, "Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy", under the following argument: "By far the worst offender in the entire Gundam franchise, which was already fairly dark to begin with. Detractors point out that it's hard to sympathize with the protagonists, especially Mikazuki, as their actions push them further off the slipper slope. This isn't helped in season 2 where you're required to be ruthless in this society to get ahead. In the final episodes, major characters get killed left and right to the point it stops being dramatic and starts becoming tedious. Not helping matters is that people are comparing it to Zeta and the director's insistence that the entire show is basically a mafia story, NOT a war story.". It was deleted
because the trope required proof of audience apathy.
The YMMV page previously included:
- Eight Deadly Words: Detractors of the series frequently point this out as a problem. With a bleak setting, extremely morally shady characters (especially the main character), even worse villains, and an underdeveloped Big Bad who not only manages to succeed but ends on a high note, it's pretty easy to stop caring about what happens to the characters., but it was deleted
because Eight Deadly Words became a DefinitionOnlyPage.
- Ending Aversion: The outcome of the final episode is extremely divisive, with a pretty vocal segment of the fandom decrying it for feeling that Tekkadan didn't get the payoff they deserved while Rustal, Julietta, Nobliss, and Gjallarhorn in general successfully destroyed Tekkadan and ended on a high note, with only Iok and Nobliss receiving any form of comeuppance that ultimately rings hollow because of the other villains still winning- the way they won also gets accused of being a complete Shoot the Shaggy Dog for the sake of a Gray-and-Grey Morality message. Many who want a sequel for the series tend to request for Rustal and Julieta to get killed and for Gjallarhorn to be destroyed, assuming they don't write a Fix Fic to fulfill the same purpose by having Tekkadan win the Final Battle. The trope was deleted because, supposedly, "the trope is for people avoiding a work because they hear the ending is disappointing, not about people not liking the ending."
It still includes Esoteric Happy Ending with: "While the series portrays the finale as a bittersweet but overall happy ending with Rustal reforming Gjallarhorn and recognizing Martian independence, while Iok and Nobliss Gordon are killed, detractors of the series finale point out that as a member of the previous Gjallarhorn regime, Rustal is at best complicit in or at worst actively responsible for much of the corruption that plagued the organization. Onscreen, he doesn't bat an eye at starting proxy wars, formenting violent rebellions as false flags, and making use of outlawed weapons to achieve his ends. Even with the Seven Stars disbanded, he's managed to hold on to his power by making himself the best possible candidate to be elected to lead Gjallarhorn, and both he and Julietta were willing to side with Nobliss Gordon, of all people. As a result, the detractors see him as carrying on old Gjallarhorn's corrupt practices while propping up a public facade of being a reformer."
The show's anime page includes tropes like:
- The Bad Guy Wins: Although Gjallarhorn is heavily reformed by the end of the series, there is little doubt that throughout the series they are the villains, and were fighting to remain the authority in the world. Tekkaden was simply trying to find a place to belong in the world, which put them in direct opposition to Gjallarhorn by necessity rather than any actual enmity at first. It's made clear that there are still elements of resentment on both sides by the series end though, particularly in light of the look of anger and distrust that Eugene sends Julietta's way. This makes sense when you remember Julietta, a devoted, borderline fanatical follower of Rustal Elion, is the one who murdered Mikazuki on the battlefield. Julietta doesn't miss it, or its implications, either.
- Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism: Very cynical. For starters, the protagonist is a Sociopathic Hero who kills without remorse. The main characters are a group of Child Soldiers who see nothing wrong with their profession, fighting an all-powerful army that oppresses the masses through bureaucracy and military intervention. Both sides kill each other in the most brutal and painful ways, with no hope for peace or reconcilation. The ending implies things will be much better, but by that point, so much blood has been shed.
So, what do you think?
BTW, I also asked this question in Is this an example?
to get a proper consensus.
openTroper with odd issue in Forensic Files
In The Gallbladder seems to take a strange umbrage with the edits on the Forensic Files page, having deleted a large portion of the page without valid reason.
Thankfully, another user restored all of the deleted edits due to it being crucial to the show and certain episodes, but they've done this before, even deleting examples that were mentioned in-universe,
which of course I cannot re-add myself without being accused of edit warring.
openUU misuse added back/quote issue.
This misuse of Unintentionally Unsympathetic was added back.
- History of Power Rangers: While also providing the page quote, Linkara also has an inverse view of mutantkind and Time Force compared with some of the fandom he was given. He thought that despite Ransik's sympathetic origin, his consistant evil and ingratitude justifies everyone's fears about him. And conversely, there isn't enough provided material in the show to fully have sympathetic mutants, as only 1 mutant ever had more sympathetic reasons for being in the cryo-prison, and there were even 2 examples of mutants who were given more privileges, and they betrayed society's trust.
This is critiquing the fandom treatment of the character (violating UU being No Real Life, better fitting Misaimed Fandom), not how the narrative treats them (Ransik's called out that his sympathetic past didn't excuse his evildoing, which he himself ultimately realized and allowed himself to be arrested to answer to his wrongs, so he's not unintentional). This entry also argues against UU applying to mutantkind saying this isn't the widespread opinion by fans.
When I first removed this, I asked about changing the page quote ("There's a difference between having a sympathetic backstory and actually being sympathetic.") as it's misuse, but they said to keep as it still conveyed the concept. Not it appears it's continuing to attract misuse, so what to do?
openHow to deal with a character whose innocence is unclear
In the FNAF Security Breach page YMMV page.
- Montgomery Gator is implied to have murdered Glamrock Bonnie to take his place in the band before being rendered Brainwashed and Crazy like the other antagonistic animatronics and has the most thuggish and aggressive personality of the bunch. Despite this, fan portrayals often downplay Monty's anger issues, portray him as a Jerk with a Heart of Gold, and depict his decommissioning of Glamrock Bonnie as either an accident that he feels guilty about or something Vanny brainwashed him into doing, if he's even shown to be responsible for the incident at all. It's also implied that Monty is plotting to kill Glamrock Freddy in order to become the face of the Pizzaplex, and yet there are fans who ship them together. That's not even getting into all the fans who feel sorry for Monty, wanted him to get a happy ending, and like the idea of him as an ally.
OK, for the people who aren't familiar with FNAF: This isn't nearly so cut and dry as the entry makes it out to be. It is an Ambiguous Situation. On one hand Bonnie was last seen heading towards Monty's residence, but nothing from Monty himself hints he is particularly ambitious or hungry for fame and attention. In game Monty is hinted to be The Aloner who often misses out on main shows in favor of being by himself, and it's explicitly laid out that he did not possess the murder weapon (special, very sharp claw-upgrades) for Bonnie at the time Bonnie died. The idea that he's planning to kill Freddy comes from a scene in a Game Within A Game which is strongly implied to have been hacked by the main antagonist anyway (most if not all such games are), not being an easter egg but explicitly an actual level, making it less likely to be a look in Monty's mind. The fan base is pretty much split down the middle about whether or not he did it. While Monty is a (Brainwashed and Crazy) antagonist and he certainly has flaws, this particular thing is unclear. Also we don't know when Monty and the others become Brainwashed and Crazy, he COULD have easily been in such a state when Bonnie died. So yes, people do feel sorry for Monty, especially since there really is a case to be made for his innocence regarding Bonnie. I have no doubt Monty gets genuine DILP in some form as all FNAF antagonists do, but there is a case to make for Monty being innocent and many people (myself included) do. But since I am trying my best to be fair and impartial and I don't want to start an edit war, I need some advice on how to handle this. Should I move this text to Broken Base and modify it?
Edited by CatcherInTheWryopenCould this be considered an edit war or not?
Recently, MaLady had launched the trope Memory Trigger. For the page, I suggested them several examples from the Saw series, structured in a way not too different to the structuring of multiple entries, but Malady edited it to include more bullets while removing some information that was relevant to certain examples (mostly in the general "main trials" example). We had a discussion on it until Malady said that the example writing is mostly "semi-personal" beyond the basics of bulleting, but I'm still not a fan of their edited version of my examples.
- Used in several Saw films to set up flashbacks, usually involving the characters that are remembering.
- The main trials of Saw IV, Saw VI and Saw 3D have numerous clues left to the protagonists involved regarding past events in their life, either to make them figure where to continue with the game (e.g. one of the letter messages Rigg reads in Saw IV) or to simply remind them of what they did to be tested (the written text on William's skin under the bombs strapped to him in Saw VI, the environmental props and text Bobby comes across in Saw 3D).
- Also in Saw VI:
- Hoffman telling Jill that he'll no longer see her once he's finished with all the tasks listed in the envelopes Jill left him makes the latter reminisce of the time John tried to show her that his "method of rehabilitation" works by showing Amanda (who had recently come out from her test back in the first movie) to her.
- Hoffman himself gets a Memory Trigger when he enters the surveillance room for William's game and finds a blackmail letter he had sent to Amanda back in Saw III, with the ensuing flashback montage revealing the sequence when Hoffman wrote it and Amanda read it using footage between Saw III and IV, with some additional scenes establishing the circumstances. Said letter was left by Jill (who had previously received the letter from Pamela, and was infuriated when she discovered that Hoffman was the one who wrote it) in the surveillance room as part of her sneak attack on him.
- Used in several Saw films to set up flashbacks:
- One of the letter messages Rigg reads in Saw IV helps him remember how to progress in the game.
- Reminders of what they did to be tested:
- Saw VI:
- Hoffman telling Jill that he'll no longer see her once he's finished with all the tasks listed in the envelopes Jill left him makes the latter reminisce of the time John tried to show her that his "method of rehabilitation" works by showing Amanda (who had recently come out from her test back in the first movie) to her.
- Hoffman himself gets reminded when he finds a blackmail letter he had sent to Amanda back in Saw III, in the surveillance room for William's game. The ensuing flashback montage reveals the sequence when Hoffman wrote it and Amanda read it, using footage between Saw III and IV, with some additional scenes establishing the circumstances. Said letter was left by Jill (after Pamela previously found it and gave it to her) in the surveillance room as part of her sneak attack on him, who was infuriated by the letter when she discovered that Hoffman was the one who wrote it.
Thing is, I'd now like to edit the examples back to my original writing because it's more concise and easier to read, but I want to ask if this could be considered an act of starting an Edit War. Edited by Inky100
open Dvaderstarlord5 Edit War
I've come to report an edit war from Dvaderstarlord 5. On the Live Action TV page for Franchise Original Sin, they removed the header for Supernatural from the examples from said show while also adding in some examples related to Stranger Things. I added the header for the Supernatural examples back so as to maintain accuracy as to which show the examples related to. However, in very recent times, he's deleted the Supernatural header again for (yet again) undisclosed reasons (despite the examples under this now twice deleted header very clearly applying to Supernatural and not having Jack to do with Stranger Things). And since I was the one who'd previously restored the header the last time, I can't do it this time without edit warring myself.
Edited by SimbafanA1

I want to make a Tropers page for myself but I have a special character in my username. since I can't make a Tropers/Professional_Noob page, is there something else can I do instead?